I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

The Roman See has affirmed all of these except for citing a 'defect' in her recognition of the Primacy of the See of Rome.

As for your last question. I don't know.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't. 2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't. 2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Papist! Thanks!

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage. Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"? Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct? If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

Hi, hope I can help as well.

Quote

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

Not full communion is yet achieved, anathemas have been taken out but Catholic Church reamins itself as the One coming by apostles from Our Lord Jesus, The main and the real issue between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is The Pope. We Catholics believe that St Peter see remains in Rome as well as Orthodox believed before 1054 AD.

Quote

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

Dominus Iesus, signed by John Paul II and prepared by the then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (Now His Hollyness Pope Benedict XVI) say it this way:

Quote

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH 16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50 Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52 The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Hope this document gives you a bit of more light.

Quote

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

We have not yet reached full communion.

Quote

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

Orthodox believe that Rome should not be able to interfere in the life of particular churches, though it sounds great, as an act of Independency, it also has brought many problems of canonical territories between Constantinople, the so called New Rome, and Moscow, the so called the third and definitive Rome. The play of power of Patriarchs over the church has caused many injuries to orthodoxy.

In Catholicism the one of the Eternal Rome, we have churches with internal order and fairly independent life, but we all feel united and ultimately ordered by The Bishop of Rome, the real and truth successor of St Peter and St Paul. We love orthodox lads, but we don´t follow them.

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage. Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"? Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct? If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I know these are difficult questions, so thanks in advance!

This is my absolutely particular point of view.Much of scholasticism has divided more that keep united Christianity, and yet scholasticism has never been the way our Lord Jesuschrist comanded us to call for conversion to him to all nations. From my particular prospective, much of scholasticism is rather speculation than reveled data, and to reach agreements about certain points of scholasticism it is necessary to create councils or to be defined as dogma by St Peter succesorYet scholasticism is an attempt to understand God and his ways, but to my particular point of view that sound very pretentious. And yet it is very necessary to define specific points of the teaching of the Church and defend the truth faith from contamination.There are many commands that Our Lord Jesus gives to us quite clear, one of them is His desire for us to be united in order to the world to believe in him. He appointed one to be rock and to lead His sheep until he comes back. But he never referred to set divisions through scholasticism.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

Yes, the Church of Our Lord Jesus is present, but not fully. Only in the Catholic Church You can see the real communion of all nations around God’s Son, believing him, following St Peter’s successor as he commanded us.

I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives. . .

I don't think "sympathetic" is a good word.

Quote

No bishop in Orthodoxy has ever issued a formal pro-contraception statement or pastoral letter. Every Orthodox jurisdiction that officially says anything about contraception teaches that contraception is sinful or imperfect.

The Orthodox Churches don't tend to put out statements such as the Vatican does -papal encyclicals, bulls, curial statements, etc. But in the year 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church felt the need to proclaim some basic Christian principles for the guidance of the Russian people after the country's depressing 70 years of repression by the atheistic powers. A Millennial Synod which gathered all of Russia' bishops was held in Moscow and it promulgated a major statement on the Church and modern society "Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church."

The Russian Orthodox Church allows non-abortive contraception and speaks of it in the Millennial Statement from the Synod of Bishops.

BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't. 2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Papist! Thanks!

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage. Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"? Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct? If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I know these are difficult questions, so thanks in advance!

Its much more complicated than this actually. The Eastern Catholics are expected to accept certain doctrines that differ from the EO Church. For example, they are at least expected to accept the idea that the Immaculate Conception is a valid expression of teh same faith that they hold. They need not formulated the concept of Mary's uniqueness and holiness in the same way but they must accpet that it is not heretical. The same can be said for ideas such as Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, etc. Finally, they must also accept that communion with the See of Rome is essential to full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ. However, this is not the only thing that is essential to communion with the Catholic Church. One must accept the entirety of the Apostolic Faith, and be baptized into the Church. Thanks for asking.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church.

You mean such Catholics like Louis Bouyer?

Quote from: Louis Bouyer

[T]he Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, though dreadfully tempted by the spirit of division remain one Church, in fact and by right, despite contrary appearances. This is verified by the most thorough historical investigation of this problem, however painful it may be. In fact, neither the conflict and reciprocal excommunications of the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert, nor the scandalous Crusade, redirected toward Constantinople, and its consequences, nor even the fruitless attempts at reconciliation at Lyon and Florence, which merely embittered the oppositions, suspended all communion between the Church the East and the Church of the West. To the end of the eighteenth century, limited incidents of intercommunion between the two Churches are innumerable. Not only (as a general rule) were all baptized and communicating members of one received in the other on the same basis, without abjuration, but priests and even bishops passed from one to the other or, more exactly, occasionally 'moved through' both, without encountering major difficulties.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc

This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church.

You mean such Catholics like Louis Bouyer?

Quote from: Louis Bouyer

[T]he Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, though dreadfully tempted by the spirit of division remain one Church, in fact and by right, despite contrary appearances. This is verified by the most thorough historical investigation of this problem, however painful it may be. In fact, neither the conflict and reciprocal excommunications of the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert, nor the scandalous Crusade, redirected toward Constantinople, and its consequences, nor even the fruitless attempts at reconciliation at Lyon and Florence, which merely embittered the oppositions, suspended all communion between the Church the East and the Church of the West. To the end of the eighteenth century, limited incidents of intercommunion between the two Churches are innumerable. Not only (as a general rule) were all baptized and communicating members of one received in the other on the same basis, without abjuration, but priests and even bishops passed from one to the other or, more exactly, occasionally 'moved through' both, without encountering major difficulties.

Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

I am bowled over by the clarity and accuracy of your brief post. You've put it in a nutshell. This post should be nominated for Post of the month.

Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course. The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage. In neither case was the Church rendered defective. The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

I am bowled over by the clarity and accuracy of your brief post. You've put it in a nutshell. This post should be nominated for Post of the month.

Second.

I was rather amused once by watching a priest on EWTN try to make the case that "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" really meant "Roman."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course. The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage. In neither case was the Church rendered defective. The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)

The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc

This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I.

LOL. Took nearly a millenium to do it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.I am out.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed.

Or the Toledo Creed?

Quote

However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course. The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage. In neither case was the Church rendered defective. The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)

The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.

What the Catholic Church has believed for centuries?!! How about Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence which declared us schismatics who are going to hell? That's a little bit more than just "wounded."

Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course. The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage. In neither case was the Church rendered defective. The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)

The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.

What the Catholic Church has believed for centuries?!! How about Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence which declared us schismatics who are going to hell? That's a little bit more than just "wounded."

The wound of schism is real as you can see, But we Catholics are devoted to reach a point that would enable Orthodoxy to come in full comunion with Catholic Church, once again, we can se two king of eastern chrsitians, those who are schismatics and those who are orthodox, the first ones denies any aproach any discusion of the Papacy as an element necesary for the full communion of the universal church. the second ones recognices to certain point the need of a Primus with certain exceptions to what catholicism practices now a days.

Some steps are being taken from both side to arpoach, not mater the many oponents, for example Moscow Patriarchate has recently published a book with teachings from Pope Benedict XVI, pope recitates the Credo in greek without filioque clause, side by side to Patriarch of Constantinople. His beatitud Bartolomew I has visited Guadalupe sanctuary and has called it the House of Mary in America.

To me it is clear that Patriarchs are working harder to reach communion.

And yet, Father, the common Orthodox response to Neuhaus' articles, particularly the first, will partake of the doubt and suspicion described by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London in his summation of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics.

He was unable to attend the annual Synod in Moscow in 1997 and he made a written report to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and in part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and AllRussia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

I like his law:"Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed."

And that Apocatastasis (universalism) is a hope, not an article of Faith.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The wound of schism is real as you can see, But we Catholics are devoted to reach a point that would enable Orthodoxy to come in full comunion with Catholic Church, once again, we can se two king of eastern chrsitians, those who are schismatics and those who are orthodox, the first ones denies any aproach any discusion of the Papacy as an element necesary for the full communion of the universal church. the second ones recognices to certain point the need of a Primus with certain exceptions to what catholicism practices now a days.

You already have those (largely forced into) submission to the Vatican, and left to make their own peace with the Vatican's innovations in the Faith.

Quote

Some steps are being taken from both side to arpoach, not mater the many oponents, for example Moscow Patriarchate has recently published a book with teachings from Pope Benedict XVI, pope recitates the Credo in greek without filioque clause, side by side to Patriarch of Constantinople. His beatitud Bartolomew I has visited Guadalupe sanctuary and has called it the House of Mary in America.

To me it is clear that Patriarchs are working harder to reach communion.

Florence II? Then it will go the way of Ravenna.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc

This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I.

You come into an Orthodox Catholic site and try and tell us what we are! And make insulting remarks that only uneducated (Roman) Catholics consider us Catholic and expect me (us) not to defend our faith? We are very well aware of what and who we are. Our identity is defined in the Nicene Creed not a local Roman Catholic Vatican I council. Or the average person on the street for that matter who would probably tell you Mormons are Christians too.

I am the way I am because I happen to love the Orthodox Catholic faith God gave me and will defend it whenever it is insulted or misleading information is given. I have been kicked off Roman Catholic sites and even suspended from this site in its early years for defending the Catholicity of my Church and will continue to do so.

The problem I have with Roman Catholics like yourself who come in here spouting unity, ecumenism, love, and 'sister church' theories and then begin to talk down to us as if we were somehow the dim witted wayward sister. We know who we are and have 2000+ years of theological truths to back it up. Everyting we believe was believed by your chuch at one time. We have neither added, changed, or deleted from the doctrinal truths handed down to us when the church was still basically one.

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 12:00:03 PM by Orthodoc »

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?

To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east? Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form. I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity. It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc

This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I.

You come into an Orthodox Catholic site and try and tell us what we are! And make insulting remarks that only uneducated (Roman) Catholics consider us Catholic and expect me (us) not to defend our faith? We are very well aware of what and who we are. Our identity is defined in the Nicene Creed not a local Roman Catholic Vatican I council. Or the average person on the street for that matter who would probably tell you Mormons are Christians too.

I am the way I am because I happen to love the Orthodox Catholic faith God gave me and will defend it whenever it is insulted or misleading information is given. I have been kicked off Roman Catholic sites and even suspended from this site in its early years for defending the Catholicity of my Church and will continue to do so.

The problem I have with Roman Catholics like yourself who come in here spouting unity, ecumenism, love, and 'sister church' theories and then begin to talk down to us as if we were somehow the dim witted wayward sister. We know who we are and have 2000+ years of theological truths to back it up. Everyting we believe was believed by your chuch at one time. We have neither added, changed, or deleted from the doctrinal truths handed down to us when the church was still basicall one.

Orthodoc

Goodness, you are most ridiculous. You simply love to fight. I am not telling you what you are. I am telling you how the Catholic Church views the EO Church. Why was I doing this? Because some one asked about the Catholic view. I didn't come here to defend that view. I didn't come here to insult your Church. I was only answering a quesition from and EO poster about how my Church views yours. If I was the jerk you make me out to be I would be telling you that your "Church is in schism" and that it is "separated from the Body of Christ" and that you "need repent from your vile heresies". But I did no such thing. First, because I think that does nothing to improve relations with you and the other EOs who I consider my Christian brothers. Second, because there are many here who are more educated in Church history than I am and there are many here who are much holier than I am. I no authority to be judge of your spiritual or ecclesial status. Third, this is an Eastern Orthodox forum. I am a guest and it would be profoundly rude of me to speak down to your Church and its teachings and Structure. No, instead of being a jerk like that, I am only pointing out how my Communion views yours. I did not even say that my communion is right because that be me challenging you all to a debate on the matter which I don't want to do for several reasons. First, because this is your home court and I would be outnumbered in such a debate. Second, although I have studied enough Patrology to be convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, I have not read as much as some of you have and so I am not prepared for such a debate. Second, I find debating about who's Church is the true Church be most fruitless. Third, I find that such debates often bring out the worst in me and I am trying to avoid that. I want you to consider the following:1. I did not challenge anyone to a debate2. I did not assert the truth of or falsehood of my Church's view of your Church.3. I did not speak negatively about your Church4. All I did was answer a question form an EO postern concerning my communion's view of your communiuon.5. I never asserted that you are or are not Catholic.6. I never asserted whether or not your Church or mine is the true Church.And finally, I am not one of those hippie Catholics spouting ecumenism. I think that at this point in history there are some very serious differences between our Churches (although I do not believe that that was always the case) and that those difference need to be overcome before we can enter into communion with one another. I don't claim to be right... God knows that the issues between our Churches are extermely complex and perhaps beyond my ability to unravel, but I won't have you slandering me like you have in last post.

When I fist came to this forum, I have to admitt that my behavior was not the best. I would like to think that I have grown alot since I have been here. My real purpose here is, first and foremost to learn. But secondary reason is to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches for those who want to know and to clear up mistaken ideas about what the Catholic Church teaches. I am not really here to argue or convert anyone. This may be different from my initial purpose, but I feel that I have changed a great deal in this respect. If you want to argue with some one or you have an ax to grind, please find some one else with whom to do this.

It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."[/b][/color]

True, but its only our secondary goal. Our primary goal is to take over the United States using the weapons we have hidden underground in Washington D.C. and to impose papism as the official religion of our country. Then we want to brand everyone with the mark of the beast.

Thank you, Papist, for answering my questions! And I agree that I did not think you were trying to attack Orthodoxy or anything like that. I asked an honest question about how the EO was viewed from the official Catholic perspective and you sought to answer that as best you understood it. I appreciate that and think that you've been wrongly confronted. Thank you again and sorry to have started something.

There may have been a time when wanted to 'extinguish' Orthodoxy, but I certainly think that's not the case today. I do think that Pope Benedict understands very well, and has understood for a long time, the spiritual damage resulting from the schism and wants badly to do God's will and reconcile.

Perhaps in the past, when the Catholic Church was more powerful, in the secular sense, it was content to ignore the spiritual damage. After all, when the belly is full, the mind becomes sinful. But now, with the evident problems with modernity and secularism, its leaders like Benedict have woken up.

And I think the same is the case with many in the Orthodox Church, which is why we have the fruitful dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Vatican.

As Father Neuhaus said, the route to unity cannot be what many think, a simplified give and take ecumenism. It has to begin with a joint historical walk through the past, through all the Councils, leaving aside all human frailties and errors.

Let me give one example: Consider the Christological differences between EO and OO. For centuries, perhaps, the popular wisdom among EO was that OO are monophysite. Whereas OO are actually miaphysite. This misunderstanding or mislabeling was human error. Or the devil's work. Some of it was done innocently. Some of it one purpose.

There has been much of this in the past. The first step towards unity would be to clean all this junk up out of the past and then examine the faith with clear glasses.

By the way, on a lighter note, I would bet a lot of what I have that Pope Benedict would be much much more comfortable in an Orthodox church than many of his modern (and dying) churches!

Thank you, Papist, for answering my questions! And I agree that I did not think you were trying to attack Orthodoxy or anything like that. I asked an honest question about how the EO was viewed from the official Catholic perspective and you sought to answer that as best you understood it. I appreciate that and think that you've been wrongly confronted. Thank you again and sorry to have started something.

Thank you for your kind words. It was most certainly not your fault that the conversation went the direction it did.

It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."[/b][/color]

True, but its only our secondary goal. Our primary goal is to take over the United States using the weapons we have hidden underground in Washington D.C. and to impose papism as the official religion of our country. Then we want to brand everyone with the mark of the beast.

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and AllRussia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

But I do think that the accusation may be legitimately advanced against contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. During the past 100 years we have seen the development of an Orthodox polemic that may be fairly described as fiercely anti-Western. Lossky, Romanides, and Seraphim Rose immediately come to mind, but there are many others. The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western." Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.

And what does becoming Orthodox mean in this context? It means becoming "Eastern," and not just Eastern but specifically Byzantine Eastern. When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers. Even if the Catholic Church were to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (which I agree it must do), that in itself would not be sufficient. The Catholic Church, we are told, must formally renounce the Augustinian and Thomistic construals of the Trinity. We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed. In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque. They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque). A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists. Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma. Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies. Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

It would be easy to cite other examples.

So who wants to extinguish who?

I do not raise any of this to be controversial. In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens. But fair is fair. Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium. Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.

Unfortunately Father you don't understand the mindset of a zealot. it's everything or nothing.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 03:17:15 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and AllRussia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

But I do think that the accusation may be legitimately advanced against contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. During the past 100 years we have seen the development of an Orthodox polemic that may be fairly described as fiercely anti-Western. Lossky, Romanides, and Seraphim Rose immediately come to mind, but there are many others. The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western." Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.

And what does becoming Orthodox mean in this context? It means becoming "Eastern," and not just Eastern but specifically Byzantine Eastern. When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers. Even if the Catholic Church were to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (which I agree it must do), that in itself would not be sufficient. The Catholic Church, we are told, must formally renounce the Augustinian and Thomistic construals of the Trinity. We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed. In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque. They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque). A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists. Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma. Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies. Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

It would be easy to cite other examples.

So who wants to extinguish who?

I do not raise any of this to be controversial. In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens. But fair is fair. Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium. Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.

Sincerely yours in Christ,Fr Alvin Kimel

Thank for this Father. It was very insightful. And though it may be shocking to some here, but even as a Thomist I sometimes see certiain concept through Eastern eyes. I know, shocking.

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and AllRussia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

He had a definite anti-Catholic bias, and there is much inexcusable paranoia in the Orthodox Church today concerning Catholicism, but you are extremely naive if you honestly believe that there are no influential factions present in the Catholic Church today that would like nothing better than to absorb Orthodoxy. Of course, the situation is much more complex than illustrated by Irish Hermit, as there are also many Catholics who have nothing but good intentions and good will when it comes to the Orthodox, and this is laudable. However, the Vatican bureaucracy is so vast, with so many different players involved, pushing for so many different points of view, that I don't know how you could make the statement that you have made and honestly believe that no one would take you to task for it.

Quote

... Lossky...

I've noticed that Lossky is a favourite whipping boy for those who would simply like to dismiss the controversy involving the filioque as being unimportant. As far as I know, no Catholic apologist has as yet responded in a serious way to Lossky's very substantial claims concerning the procession of the Spirit. The best that Cardinal Congar could come up with, despite his considerable scholarly output concerning the Spirit, seems to have been something to the effect that "Lossky is clearly wrong about this." Surely his very eloquent writing on the filioque controversy deserves more of a response than this.

Quote

... Seraphim Rose...

He also had some very positive things to say about St. Augustine that not all Orthodox would agree with. In any event, he is not recognized as being a serious scholar, so I don't know why you include him here.

Quote

The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."

By some Orthodox, yes, but certainly not by all.

Quote

Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.

It depends what you mean by this. Really, this is quite over the top.

Quote

When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.

This might be because Saint Augustine, with his vast corpus of writings, has had such a profound influence on the West; one might even say to the exclusion of other Fathers. Some Orthodox are very concerned about some of the things that St. Augustine wrote. Many of us think that some of these things are quite problematic.

Quote

We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.

Really? I was not aware of that.

Quote

In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque. They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque). A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists. Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!

That's right, because the Catholic Church, in its present form, is incapable of admitting that it was ever wrong. Instead, it comes up with all kinds of written acrobatics like this "clarification" that you site above, which is really just the opposite of a clarification.

Quote

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma. Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies. Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

There's nothing "Byzantine" about Palamite doctrine at all. It is Orthodox. We have specially commemorated St. Gregory Palamas liturgically in Lent for hundreds of years; it is not a question of something becoming "increasingly popular." So you are quite wrong about this. Eventually we might be able to come to an agreement on this point, but at this time I don't know how. For now, we are divided on this issue.

Why would the Fathers write in support of St. Gregory Palamas, when the last Father died a couple of hundred years before St. Gregory was born? The Orthodox believe that St. Gregory unpacked, expanded, and clarified what some Fathers had already said and clarified Orthodox belief on the nature of God, not that he somehow added to Orthodox doctrine.

Quote

I do not raise any of this to be controversial.

Really?

Quote

In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens. But fair is fair. Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium. Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.

Not from the Orthodox point of view. For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong. The whole scholastic way of thinking about God, for example. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You are not obliged to like it. And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.

Obviously, a kind of doctrinal "drift" occurred at times in the first millennium when the East and West were either unable or unwilling to understand each other, marked by frequent ruptures in communion. This marked the beginning of our estrangement, without it being on any official level. This estrangement begins quite early in the first millennium and continues on into the second, becoming more marked and radical as time goes on. I do not accept your implicit contention that we had unity in the first millennium even though we had doctrinal difference.

Not from the Orthodox point of view. For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong. The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example. Sorry, but that is the way it is. You are not obliged to like it. And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"? I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock? I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official. I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin.

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't. 2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.